Thanks for sharing - I'll share that quote by Macron widely.
The case of Dora Moutot clearly illustrates that the direction of travel in France is to restrict freedom of speech and for lawmakers to render "speech we hate" as "hate speech".
Moutot's crime (in a literal sense) was saying on a TV show that women should be wary of people with a penis (personnes à pénis) - I've watched the clip and it seems she was trying to be kind towards the trans-identifying mayor on the same panel by using this sanitised language rather than just saying men.
Free speech dogma, or philosophy if you prefer, presupposes a dichotomy between speech and behavior, and that the two are separate and distinct enough that one can be protected and the other proscribed.
But in reality there is speech that lays the foundation for violence and revolution that would overturn any protections. Speech that justifies terrorism so that recruits can be indoctrinated under protection of law. There is stochastic violent speech, just barely behind the border of incitement and threat. See Franz Fanon.
Free speech advocates ignore another reality: free speech is enjoyed by intellectuals but tolerated by ordinary citizens. A social compact underlies free speech. There are real world costs to free speech, but the community has faith (the dogma) but no proof that the benefits outweigh the costs. Free speech is tolerated in a community of CITIZENS who share an interest in the future health and prosperity of the society for themselves and their families and neighbors. Free speech zealots sweep aside the costs.
Supporters of free speech doctrine (and I include myself) need to consider answers to these to these questions and re-consider the protection boundaries, especially the right to protest and in the circumstances of noise, proximity to peaceful activities like work and study or recreation.
Another consideration is government response. If the best answer to bad speech is more speech, then government might raise a much larger communication (propaganda) effort against it. This might require greater influence or presence in education.
Take one example of a big lie protected by free speech that enables violence and harassment, the genocide blood libel against Israel. What do free speech advocates believe can be done in response within the current free speech parameters?
Hasn't this been decided in a US courts already? I'm talking about the Brandenberg test, which seems like a standard that most people would find reasonable. It's not talked about as much as it should.
I'll be honest, I've always found these discussions tedious & dishonest. For me, the border is at "explicit call to illegal action" and at "justifying and praising violent crime, especially murder".
There's always going to be trouble delineating that border exactly, and I'll usually lean towards innocence if it is unclear, but a certain kind of person then wants me to get bogged down in exact word choices over fictious cases, despite most real-life situations being nowhere near the border, either one way or another.
And the precise people calling me then a "free speech absolutist", mostly on the left, will reliably be much worse than their opponents at abusing free speech. They will say that it was good that, say, Charlie Kirk was murdered, because his speech "endangered" people, and furthermore argue the same holds for large swaths of conservatives. The irony is of course completely lost on them, and applying the same standard to them, they will cry foul, suddenly discovering their taste for free speech.
Macron: "There is no freedom unless there is a limit on my freedom" And the limit is what the Macrons determine it to be. This is "free" speech in Europe.
Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Who the hell put ANYBODY in charge of what I think and say?
If you don't like what I'm saying, don't listen. Problem solved.
Thanks for sharing - I'll share that quote by Macron widely.
The case of Dora Moutot clearly illustrates that the direction of travel in France is to restrict freedom of speech and for lawmakers to render "speech we hate" as "hate speech".
Moutot's crime (in a literal sense) was saying on a TV show that women should be wary of people with a penis (personnes à pénis) - I've watched the clip and it seems she was trying to be kind towards the trans-identifying mayor on the same panel by using this sanitised language rather than just saying men.
https://doramoutot.substack.com/p/je-suis-condamnee-par-la-justice
Free speech dogma, or philosophy if you prefer, presupposes a dichotomy between speech and behavior, and that the two are separate and distinct enough that one can be protected and the other proscribed.
But in reality there is speech that lays the foundation for violence and revolution that would overturn any protections. Speech that justifies terrorism so that recruits can be indoctrinated under protection of law. There is stochastic violent speech, just barely behind the border of incitement and threat. See Franz Fanon.
Free speech advocates ignore another reality: free speech is enjoyed by intellectuals but tolerated by ordinary citizens. A social compact underlies free speech. There are real world costs to free speech, but the community has faith (the dogma) but no proof that the benefits outweigh the costs. Free speech is tolerated in a community of CITIZENS who share an interest in the future health and prosperity of the society for themselves and their families and neighbors. Free speech zealots sweep aside the costs.
Supporters of free speech doctrine (and I include myself) need to consider answers to these to these questions and re-consider the protection boundaries, especially the right to protest and in the circumstances of noise, proximity to peaceful activities like work and study or recreation.
Another consideration is government response. If the best answer to bad speech is more speech, then government might raise a much larger communication (propaganda) effort against it. This might require greater influence or presence in education.
Take one example of a big lie protected by free speech that enables violence and harassment, the genocide blood libel against Israel. What do free speech advocates believe can be done in response within the current free speech parameters?
Hasn't this been decided in a US courts already? I'm talking about the Brandenberg test, which seems like a standard that most people would find reasonable. It's not talked about as much as it should.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
I'll be honest, I've always found these discussions tedious & dishonest. For me, the border is at "explicit call to illegal action" and at "justifying and praising violent crime, especially murder".
There's always going to be trouble delineating that border exactly, and I'll usually lean towards innocence if it is unclear, but a certain kind of person then wants me to get bogged down in exact word choices over fictious cases, despite most real-life situations being nowhere near the border, either one way or another.
And the precise people calling me then a "free speech absolutist", mostly on the left, will reliably be much worse than their opponents at abusing free speech. They will say that it was good that, say, Charlie Kirk was murdered, because his speech "endangered" people, and furthermore argue the same holds for large swaths of conservatives. The irony is of course completely lost on them, and applying the same standard to them, they will cry foul, suddenly discovering their taste for free speech.
Macron isn't wrong, he's anti-American and that plays well with the French public.
¿Por qué no los dos?
Could be but he is scrambling to save himself and needs someone in France to support him.
Macron: "There is no freedom unless there is a limit on my freedom" And the limit is what the Macrons determine it to be. This is "free" speech in Europe.
Another reason to be grateful to be in America.